Go to page

You did a lot of whining and posturing, but you never addressed how Australia's economy is doing so well with an 18 dollar minimum wage and yet it would absolutely destroy the American economy. If that was true, why didn't it destroy the Australian economy?

I didn't argue it would "absolutely destroy the American economy." So what are you talking about?

In fact, you have dodged the question for months why German auto manufacturers are justified paying their American workers half as much as they pay their German workers building the same car and selling it at the same price.

Fucking unbelievable, ANOTHER Germany reference from OldGaffer. You are like a bumper sticker that can type. They are justified for the same reason anyone is justified in buying anything. And because it makes financial sense to buy things for the best deal one can find them.

One thing you are consistent, you always favor the corporation, and corporate malfeasance is never in your spotlight, it is always the workers fault.

The lack of unemployment effects from minimum wages is a rather interesting phenomenon. It demonstrates how coercive government policy can be superior to the 'free market' grunt from neo-liberalism.

Orthodox economics has had to react by suggesting its all about market failure: by finding that monopsonistic power is the norm, it suggests that supply and demand naturally leads to the exact same result as indicated by Marxist thought. Underpayment or exploitation, depending on the colours you fly, then becomes an inconvenient reality to the right winger banging on about freedom.

The lack of unemployment effects from minimum wages is a rather interesting phenomenon. It demonstrates how coercive government policy can be superior to the 'free market' grunt from neo-liberalism.

Orthodox economics has had to react by suggesting its all about market failure: by finding that monopsonistic power is the norm, it suggests that supply and demand naturally leads to the exact same result as indicated by Marxist thought. Underpayment or exploitation, depending on the colours you fly, then becomes an inconvenient reality to the right winger banging on about freedom.

You've stated this same carefully-worded thing here a million times. Of course, your standard sharp-tongued commentary requires first accepting as proven truth that labor is not an exchange/transaction, and that any glut of a not very valuable thing is monopsony by definition.

Of course, your standard sharp-tongued commentary requires first accepting as proven truth that labor is not an exchange/transaction, and that any glut of a not very valuable thing is monopsony by definition.

Monopsonistic power refers to wage making power. That is accepted by orthodox economics as being the norm. Do you think underpayment is something to cheer? I have to ask as you fellows, when pushed, are clear supporters of coercive inefficiency.

Monopsony means something. What it doesn't mean is a situation in which a buyer of something decides a maximum price at which he's willing to buy it. It also doesn't mean a situation in which there's a glut.

The things you've described as "inefficient" versus "efficient" in the past are beyond ironic. Labor is declared not an exchange, buyers of it are declared part of some sort of vast monopsony, and the failure of government to set prices in a way you like is declared "coercive inefficiency," while closed shop labor organization wages are declared "efficient." Bogus word perversion.

An ignorant comment. Underpayment is the vocab of supply & demand. Mere reference to the distinction between average labour costs and marginal labour costs. The problem is that your knowledge of supply & demand is next to zero and you use that to maintain your support for coercive outcome.

The things you've described as "inefficient" versus "efficient" in the past are beyond ironic.

Again, basic ignorance. I've merely referred to pareto efficiency. I didn't invent that dear chap; its one of the basics of modern economics.

Labor is declared not an exchange, buyers of it are declared part of some sort of vast monopsony, and the failure of government to set prices in a way you like is declared "coercive inefficiency," while closed shop labor organization wages are declared "efficient." Bogus word perversion.

Given you don't understand supply and demand, the perversion is all yours. We're back to my main point: the reality of the minimum wage makes a mockery of right winger ponce over exchange and freedom. Neo-liberalism is, by its very nature, about celebrating coercion. You'd have to show minimum wages necessarily create mass unemployment to suggest otherwise.

You want monospony to mean something as subjective and vague as "wage making power," but it doesn't, it means sole buyer. There is no sole buyer of labor, so use honest language, or at least less dishonest language.

You still don't know supply & demand, despite my "million" attempts to help you. It does mean that the free market necessarily fails.

Supply and demand doesn't have its own special vocabulary that permits you to redefine words. "Underpayment" is inherently a subjective value judgment, regardless of "supply and demand" or anything else. Regardless of the lens, the word is intrinsically subjective opinion. "I think labor should be paid more." That is the essence of underpayment. That you fancy the word 'underpayment' doesn't alter the fact it's a subjective value judgment. Furthermore, that you fancy the word 'monopsony' doesn't mean there's a monopsony any time a buyer of something refuses to pay more than (x) for it.

You want monospony to mean something as subjective and vague as "wage making power," but it doesn't, it means sole buyer. There is no sole buyer of labor, so use honest language, or at least less dishonest language.

We already know you don't understand supply & demand (and how wage making power translates into monopsonistic power, by definition).

What do I want? I'd refer to Marxist labour theory, but also highlight the inconsistency of Adam Smith's classical economics understanding and its inconsistency with the orthodox approach. Its just matter of fact that the orthodox approach is reliant on monopsony to understand empirical analysis into minimum wage effects. And its also matter of fact that it makes a mockery of right wing neo-liberalism (and its innate acceptance of coercive inefficiency)

In this example? To exhaust mutually beneficial exchange. For example, monopsonistic power derived through labour market frictions leads to the conclusion of an inefficiently high equilibrium rate of unemployment (which of course isn't achieved because of other market failures)

Supply and demand doesn't have its own special vocabulary that permits you to redefine words.

Repeating basic error seems to be your thing. The orthodox approach to labour is based on objective measures (subjectivity only exists within the labour supply model, given the supposed indifference curve map based on the two goods leisure and consumption)

That you fancy the word 'underpayment' doesn't alter the fact it's a subjective value judgment. Furthermore, that you fancy the word 'monopsony' doesn't mean there's a monopsony any time a buyer of something refuses to pay more than (x) for it.

Do you want to die next week in car accident, or do you want to vote Republican?

A guy who gets food stamps and thus can survive regardless of whether he works or not is therefore afforded the freedom to accept a job that pays shit.

You have a hard time thinking critically, don't you? As minimum wage rises, it makes more and more financial sense to automate. As technology becomes more affordable, it makes more and more financial sense to automate. Both of these things are occurring over time. Inevitably.

Which maybe that's great! Maybe we should encourage it to be adopted faster. But then don't give me this bullshit that all your prattle is about some concern for the economic well-being of the poor generally.

Companies that pay minimum wage are not typically the ones you're subsidizing. This is standard elementary rhetoric.

Gosh, that's easy enough. A higher minimum wage increases the incentive to automate. Which I regard as a good thing. Because, as an educated economic historian, I understand that mechanization and automation is what turned America into the richest country in the world, in the first place.

I find it beyond sad, and actually TRAGIC, that America has so utterly forgotten what made this country so rich in the first place.

Political Hotwire

Founded in 2005, Political Hotwire is a political forum to discuss current events, world news, and political topics. We welcome all political ideologies to discuss all political issues from civil rights to business and industry.